Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Against California’s Discriminatory Mask Ban on Federal Agents

In a significant victory for federal supremacy and law enforcement safety, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, appointed by Bill Clinton, has issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of California’s Senate Bill 627, the so-called “No Secret Police Act.” 

The ruling, handed down on Monday, finds that the law unlawfully discriminates against federal officers by prohibiting them from wearing face coverings during operations while exempting state and local police from the same restrictions. This decision underscores the ongoing clash between California’s progressive policies and federal immigration enforcement under the Trump administration.

The law, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2025 amid escalating tensions over ICE operations in sanctuary cities, aimed to increase “accountability and transparency” following videos of masked federal agents conducting detentions. 

However, Judge Snyder ruled that SB 627 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution by treating federal agents differently from their state counterparts. “The act treats federal law enforcement officers less favorably than state officers,” Snyder wrote in her 30-page decision, noting that the mask ban does not apply uniformly. 

The injunction is stayed until February 19 to allow California time to appeal, but it effectively halts the mask prohibition for now. Notably, the judge upheld a companion measure, the “No Vigilantes Act” (SB 805), which requires all non-uniformed officers—federal included—to visibly display identification such as agency affiliation and badge numbers. This partial win for California ensures some level of officer identifiability, though critics argue it still burdens federal operations.

This ruling is the latest chapter in California’s persistent efforts to obstruct federal immigration policies, a pattern the California Globe has extensively covered. SB 627 was first introduced in June 2025 by Senators Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) in response to anti-ICE protests and riots in Los Angeles, where masked officers were accused of “secret police” tactics . 

The bill faced immediate backlash from Republican lawmakers and law enforcement groups, who rebuked it as an overreach that endangered officers. By September 2025, Governor Newsom signed the bill into law alongside other measures targeting what he called “Trump’s secret police,” celebrating it as a stand against “authoritarian regimes” and “terror campaigns.” 

However, the California Globe exposed the hypocrisy in the law’s exemptions for state agencies like the California Highway Patrol and the Franchise Tax Board, labeling it a carve-out that undermined its purported goals. The U.S. Department of Justice swiftly responded, filing a lawsuit in November 2025 to protect federal officers from what they described as California’s unconstitutional interference . 

By January 2026, the DOJ secured a temporary pause on enforcement, highlighting the law’s role in enabling doxxing and assaults on ICE agents—a 1,300% surge since 2024, linked to inflammatory rhetoric from Democrats and astro-turf activists. This ties into broader sanctuary policies, such as SB 54 (2017), which limit local cooperation with ICE and have invited multiple DOJ lawsuits.

Governor Gavin Newsom expressed disappointment with the ruling, reiterating his commitment to protecting vulnerable communities. 

In a statement from his office, Newsom said, “This decision is a setback, but we will appeal to ensure accountability and end secret police tactics that terrorize our residents. California will not back down from defending our values against federal overreach.” Newsom’s rhetoric echoes his past characterizations of ICE operations as “state-sponsored terrorism,” a stance that has drawn criticism for inciting violence against federal agents.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, a vocal critic of Newsom and California’s sanctuary policies, hailed the injunction as a triumph for the rule of law. 

“This ruling upholds the Supremacy Clause and protects our brave federal agents from discriminatory state laws designed to hinder immigration enforcement,” Essayli stated. “California’s attempts to obstruct federal duties have repeatedly failed in court, and this is no exception.” Essayli, who has previously demanded accountability for sanctuary protections shielding criminal illegal immigrants, including child sex offenders , emphasized that the decision reinforces federal authority amid rising assaults on officers.

Senator Scott Wiener, the bill’s author, announced plans to revise SB 627 to apply equally to all law enforcement, addressing the discrimination issue. “We’ll rewrite the measure to ensure uniformity while maintaining our commitment to transparency,” Wiener said.